Just 14 years ago San Francisco's premium cooking school, the California Culinary Academy, charged $25,000 for tuition and the resulting AOS two-year degree. Students received about 18 months of hard core, concentrated training at its old campus on Polk Street. Even then change progressed. As a public company, dollars and cents were increasingly iimportant - often to the students' dismay.
When the administration cut the various dishwashers who washed dishes while the students learned, the students became incensed. "You want us to WHAT?" they cried.? "We have to read and learn, cook and bake and wash our own dishes? What are y'all thinking?" Yes, I was part of that vocal group.
I'm not complaining. After being a chef for years I took time off and attended the academy, completing my adolescent dream. It was one of the best times of my life. I loved it.
For those unaware, The California Culinary Academy moved from its old-world Polk location to its current, more modern (translate: lower rent) Protrero Hill campus. I confess: attending the school in the middle of The City still holds more appeal than the new location. Still, you're paying for the education and the fabulous results presented on an ever-increasingly quanity of television and print ads. Are they fabulous? Is $50,000 a valid sum of money for a two-year degree? Frankly, no.
I know, I know. It's my alma mater. I won a small National Restaurant Association scholarship while attending the school, produced copius amounts of work, adored at least two of my teachers and made silly impressions of the others, had my wallet and $200 stolen out of the locker room...ah, good times!
While frequently interacting with various chefs, one subject often comes up: would you hire a recent culinary graduate? And, frequently, the answer is a resounding NO! Many established chefs find working with overzealous, overly-confident, and underskililed graduates sort of tedius. The good ones (and, let's face it, every school produces a few) don't stay for long as they quickly climb the culinary ladder of success; and, recent graduates judge the professionals they work with because techniques are different than in the classroom. Puke. Gag. .
Lets hypothesize: You receive, say, $25,000 in grants, taking out student loans to cover the balance. You're not in the top one percent, but do well. You graduate thinking that you are the World's Next Greatest Chef. You find work at one of the many famous eateries in the Bay Area - for $10 an hour. Working five nights per week until midnight plating desserts or pulling tiny herbs off of stems or cutting onions. You do so because its a good education and great for the resume. Payments on your student loan of $25,000 are due. And, you make $10 an hour.
In other words, the good part of the CCA is the interest, the romance and excitement it brings to potential chefs, bakers, writers and so on. The Academy exposes students to an amazing array of food-related topics from nutrition and restaurant safety to baking bread and carving up a cow. It's all there. Students have a chance to learn from relatively good to great teachers.
The not so good is that exposure to each topic is brief. Carving cow, for example, gets better with practice. A couple of weeks of lecture and lab does not make for a professional cow carver (i.e. butcher). Still, it's a start. For the money, students receive a basic understanding of each subject. It does not, however, graduate chefs, butchers, caterers and food writers. It graduates people with a year and a half of food and food-related training.
Compare it to medical school. A future doctor graduates medical school and spends the next couple of years becoming a doctor. From internship to residency there is a heap o' training ahead. No medical student assumes that, upon graduating, he/she is the world's next greatest doctor. There is a lot to do. Of course, their education eventually pays for itself - big time. The same goes for the Culinary Academy. Except that part is left out of its advertising. It takes years of training and hard work to be a chef, much less a great one. Many of my colleagues feel that the European method of apprenticing in kitchens for several years is the better of the two paths to follow.
Everyone wants to cook in San Francisco. This is the home to Gary Danko and Michael Mina, George Marrone and Hubert Keller (and his new, cool Burger Bar in Macy's). That's a huge mouthful of chefs in one sentence. Literally, there are dozens of well-known and/or well thought of chefs to admire and emulate. Here's a little secret: great chefs are great teachers. From their brilliantly photographed cookbooks to working with recent culinary graduates, these chefs are at the top of their game and understand their reponsibliity in helping the newbees. And they do. But most chefs are not in their league and entry level jobs at the best and the famous are limited.
I have seen ads where culinary graduates are asked not to apply. This is a competitive field; even more so because of the current economy. I am all for going to school if the post-graduation truth and consequences are clearly spelled out before a student impulsively puts him/herself into unmanageable debt. Know that this is your passion. Know that financial resources may be required for a couple of years beyond schooling. Search for job opportunites outside of the highly competitive Bay Area (or NYC). Be humble and willing to take instruction. Always assume that you don't know anything until your current chef demonstrates their own method. Explore other training opportunites such as apprenticing in various kitchens over several years, learning everything you can. You might only make that same $10 an hour; but, you are being paid to learn. You don't have heavy debt at the end of your apprenticehip (at least not from school tuition).
One other alternative, and a great one, is enrolling in SF City College's culinary progarm. A bare fraction of the CCA's cost, it is a highly respected program resulting in the same degree.
Source
